n8n_get_tag

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation that may return partial data. The description adds valuable context about when this tool is appropriate ('rarely needed') and its specific use case ('validating tag existence before bulk operations'), which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read operation with good annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and complete schema coverage, the description provides appropriate context about when to use the tool and its relationship to sibling tools. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by indicating what information is returned ('details including ID and name').

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Tag ID from list_tags'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get tag details') and resource ('tag'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_tags' by noting it's 'rarely needed' and that 'list_tags' should be used 'for most cases'. This provides clear differentiation from related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('rarely needed - use list_tags for most cases') and when it is appropriate ('useful for validating tag existence before bulk operations'). It names the alternative tool ('list_tags') and gives a specific use case scenario.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.